Standing Committee A

[Derek Conway in the Chair]

School Transport Bill

Clause 2 - Piloting of new provisions

Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question again proposed.

Charlotte Atkins: Before we adjourned for lunch, I was congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) on his powerful campaign against the three-for-two allowance. As this is the first time that I have spoken in this Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Conway, it would be remiss of me not to say what a pleasure and privilege it is to serve under your expert stewardship.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth has been so persuasive that we agree that local education authorities will have to undertake not to use the three-for-two provision in the buses that they contract to carry out the school transport pilots. I hope that we shall learn something from the schemes. Although parents are understandably concerned about the three-for-two allowance, there is little data to support the argument that the use of the three-for-two allowance poses severe risks to child safety.

Mark Hoban: I am sure that the hon. Member for Monmouth is delighted that the hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) expressed scepticism about such matters. Can the Minister explain the cost implications for pilot authorities in moving from a three-for-two allowance to a two-to-two allowance on buses? Some general information would be useful to the Committee.

Charlotte Atkins: I do not know about the costs involved at present, but I am sure that we can provide the hon. Gentleman with such information. We shall certainly be examining the pilot provisions in various local authorities and I am sure that we can draw up some cost implications. The whole three-for-two allowance is very much a matter for the LEA. Indeed, the allowance is withering, not growing.
 Let us consider the alternatives to the three-for-two allowance. If there were not enough seats, we could allow young children to stand on the bus to the limit of the standing capacity of that bus or to leave them at the bus stop. Standing passengers are more vulnerable to injury when a vehicle is both accelerating and braking, as well as if there were an accident. If we left children stranded at the bus stop, whether or not in an isolated area, they could be subject to other dangers and would miss out on one of the safest ways in which to travel to school—on the bus. 
 The three-for-two allowance should be used only as a fail-safe mechanism. No one is suggesting that it should be used as a planned overcrowding measure. The sad accident that occurred in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth was not the fault of overcrowding, but it gave rise to concern among parents about the three-for-two allowance. Ultimately, it is the LEA that has to decide about the three-for-two rule.

Christopher Chope: I thought that the Minister said that if a LEA wanted to enter into a pilot scheme, it would have to forgo the three-for-two allowance. Why will the Government not give local authorities discretion in such situations? Why does the hon. Lady want to centralise matters?

Charlotte Atkins: That is because we are considering pilots. I was talking about the general situation. We shall be examining a range of issues in connection with the pilots, such as improving school transport and various other options, which is why we are specifying that we will not use the three-for-two allowance in the pilots. The allowance has a limited application. It applies only to stage fare buses that have bench seats, the buses that stop regularly and do not have seat belts. The allowance is applicable not only to school transport, but general public transport. However, I appreciate that it is more likely to be used in the school context because that is when overcrowding is most likely to occur. All seats are required to be fitted with seat belts on dedicated school journeys by minibus or coach. The allowance cannot be used in that context.
 I hope that my remarks have allayed some of the concerns that have been raised. 
Mr. Huw Edwards (Monmouth) I thank the Minister for her assurance that the three-for-two concession will not be permitted in the 20 pilots. On her second point, the accident that she referred to—the Stuart Cunningham-Jones tragedy—took place not in my constituency but in the vale of Glamorgan. I acknowledge that overcrowding per se was not the main cause of that accident.
 The Minister says that there is no evidence of the three-for-two rule and the excessive overcrowding that that can permit causing concern. That is a bit like the assurances we always get when we are campaigning for provisions such as traffic calming, which is that there has not been an accident yet. I ask her to imagine a 52-seater bus that has 78 people sitting in it under the three-for-two rule, as well as the 10, 12, 15 or however many who are allowed to stand. Should there be a serious accident involving a vehicle with that level of overcrowding, people would look back and ask why it is still legal for 78 children under 14 to be sitting on double seats.

David Drew: I do not want to get involved in the wider discussion, but we ought to look at encouraging operators to provide seat belts and proper seating for children. I see no reason why that should not be a priority in school transport.

Huw Edwards: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. In the case in which I was involved, it was the intransigence of Stagecoach, the bus operator, which caused this issue to be raised. It has plenty of buses
 and it could have put on an extra one. However, although it was being subsidised for the route and it was getting guaranteed season ticket sales from the pupils, it wanted an additional subsidy to put on that extra vehicle to avoid the overcrowding. It refused to put on that extra vehicle, and eventually the county council subsidised it itself.
 We have been told that it is likely that a road safety Bill will be introduced soon. It may be appropriate for that legislation to give consideration to getting rid of the three-for-two rule once and for all.

Christopher Chope: We have had an interesting debate. However, I am more confused than ever about the justification for the Government limiting the number of pilots to 20. The Minister spoke as though that was contained in the Bill, and that we need not worry because things could be altered in regulations. However, the Government have not included any figure in the Bill. They have said that they will bring forward regulations and yet, notwithstanding the much higher than expected demand that the Minister says there is for participation in the pilot process, they seem to be insisting on sticking rigidly to the figure of 20. The Minister said that they could increase that number later through regulations, if that was thought appropriate. Is the Minister saying that when the scheme is initially introduced the Government may well have more than 20 pilots, or are the Government still convinced that 20 should be the maximum number?
 It would help Committee members if the Government were able to produce the cost-benefit analysis on the three-for-two allowance, because although that creates increased danger there is also an enormous benefit from being able to have three for two. I am sure that the Minister's prolific officials have been able to produce some material, and we could use that to inform our debate and to test the Government as to whether it is reasonable for them to make non-use of three for two a condition of being able to apply for a pilot.

Charlotte Atkins: I am happy to look at the figure of 20. That was our best guess of the number of pilots that would be appropriate. Clearly, there is a great deal of interest from local authorities throughout the country about going for the pilots. The figure will probably be more rather than less, simply because of the huge interest that the Bill has generated among local authorities.
 On the cost-benefit analysis of ensuring that the pilots do not use the three-for-two allowance, I am happy to produce that information. We are very much in a learning experience about the three for two. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth mentioned a road safety Bill—that would depend on whether it is in the Queen's Speech. I am sure that he will examine that, but I cannot commit anyone to examine three for two in the context of a possible road safety Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Power to repeal new provisions

Mark Hoban: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in
clause 3, page 4, line 22, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 39, in 
clause 3, page 4, line 24, leave out 
 'such date as may be specified in the order' 
 and insert '1 August 2011.'.
 Amendment No. 52, in 
clause 3, page 4, line 27, at end insert— 
 '(2A) The appropriate national authority shall publish the measures that it will use to determine whether or not the scheme should cease to have effect at the conclusion of the pilots, including— 
 (a) the impact on traffic congestion, 
 (b) the proportion of children using different ways of travelling, 
 (c) the effect of charging on car usage, 
 (d) the impact on families on low incomes, 
 (e) the impact on children with special educational needs, 
 (f) the impact on after-school activities and extended schools, and 
 (g) the impact on school choice, including the education of children in accordance with the religious, philosophical or linguistic preferences of their parents.'.
 Amendment No. 40, in 
clause 3, page 4, line 29, leave out '2011' and insert '2009'.
 Amendment No. 41, in 
clause 3, page 4, line 31, leave out '2013' and insert '2011'.

Mark Hoban: I welcome you to this afternoon's proceedings—the final sitting on the Bill—Mr. Conway.
 Clause 3 represents one of the most important procedural issues facing the Committee. As the explanatory notes indicate, it in effect gives the power for the school transport pilots to roll on beyond 2013. There will be no other opportunity through primary legislation to debate further changes to the schemes. The schemes beyond 1 August 2014 can be rolled out not only to the 20 or so pilot authorities, but to any local authority that chooses to apply to the Secretary of State to operate a school transport scheme. 
 In a sense, this is the one and only chance that we have through primary legislation to shape the future of school transport. I want to address that particular issue with the amendments that I have tabled—particularly amendments Nos. 38 and 39. 
 The Select Committee on Transport, in its scrutiny of the Bill, stated: 
''While the provisions relating to the pilot schemes themselves are timid, the draft Bill as a whole is audacious. It gives the Secretary of State power to roll out pilot schemes without any further legislation.''
 It expressed concern about that, and also stated: 
''In effect, the Secretary of State for Education in England and the National Assembly in Wales would have power to determine the way in which school transport should be provided, without any 
further report on the success of schemes, or sanction by Parliament. This is not acceptable. There are serious practical questions to be asked.''
 The report of the Select Committee on Education and Skills on the Bill expressed the same concern: this matter will change the shape of the schemes. 
 Through amendment No. 38, pilot schemes will be brought to an end and will not roll on ad infinitum without any further consideration. If they are to be resuscitated, legislation needs to be brought forward to enable that to be done. Rather than give an unspecified date in the clause, we need to give a firm end date—1 August 2011. 
 The other issue, which is addressed in amendments Nos. 40 and 41, is the concern that the Select Committee on Education and Skills report expressed. It said: 
''2011 seems a very long time to wait for a solution to be found to school transport that can be implemented nationwide. We therefore recommend that the Department looks into the possibility of running shorter pilot schemes or of evaluating currently existing initiatives to determine what works best.''
 Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 will bring forward the period over which the pilots can be run—from effectively ending in 2013 to ending in 2011. 
 I am not sure that we need pilot schemes that last from their date of inception—which could be in 2005 or 2006—until 2013. That would give us six or seven years to pilot the schemes and find out their effects. We should be capable of evaluating those schemes in a much shorter period, so that we do not prolong a pilot that happens to have detrimental effects on any of a range of issues—such as school transport, school choice, congestion, charging families on low incomes—beyond the time needed for evaluation. 
 Allowing the schemes to last until 2013 makes the pilots too long; we should shorten the evaluation period so that it ends in 2011, and should enable some schemes to terminate as early as 2009. That will give the Department and scheme authorities ample time to put the schemes into practice, see what is happening and assess the evaluation. 
 In earlier debates, we referred to some of the criteria that could be used to assess the evaluation of schemes. Under an earlier amendment on scheme authorities, I suggested a series of measures, which are set out in amendment No. 52. The Government need to give local authorities guidance on the success criteria for the schemes. 
 Clearly, there will not be a straight yes or no answer on whether the schemes are effective; one cannot say that a scheme has worked just because it has reduced traffic congestion—if that is one's sole focus—when it has had a negative effect on other aspects of school provision in the area. That is why, in amendment No. 52, I set out a series of nine measures. That series is non-exhaustive, but it includes important issues on which we need to reflect when determining whether schemes have been successful, whether the pilot should continue and whether the scheme should be rolled out across the country, as is permissible under the Bill. 
 We have spoken a great deal about the impact on traffic congestion. One of the main purposes of the measures before us is to reduce such congestion, and clearly that is a factor that the Government should take into account when assessing pilot schemes and whether they should continue. There is also the issue of the proportion of children using different modes of travel. There was a great deal of debate on Second Reading about how many children cycled, walked, or used cars or buses to get to school. If we do not achieve a modal shift away from cars to other forms of transport, and if there is not a shift towards walking, the Bill will not have succeeded, because it provides an opportunity to tackle the issue of childhood obesity. 
 Our suggested subsection (2A)(c) refers to 
''the effect of charging on car usage''.
 There has already been debate in Committee on the tension between charging and its effect on car usage. We have cited the examples of rural constituencies; hon. Members have said that if people were charged too much they would use their cars. That is a valid concern. If charging drives up car usage, the Bill will have failed. The issue of the pilots' impact on low-income families was addressed this morning, so I shall not talk more about that, but clearly any decision to roll out the pilots to the rest of the country needs to reflect their impact on such families. 
 There are also complex issues in respect of children with special educational needs, which we debated on Tuesday. The Committee would agree, in one of its moments of consensus, that some of the most complex issues surrounding implementation have to do with the impact on children with special educational needs, who could attend a wide variety of institutions, including mainstream schools, special units attached to schools and special schools. Two thirds of the cost of school transport is incurred by children with special educational needs—who are, in a way, perhaps the most obvious and difficult target in terms of achieving cost reductions—so we need to consider the impact that any measures undertaken in pilots has had on meeting the needs of children with mobility issues, autism, sensory impairment and a range of needs that are currently covered. 
 The next issues to deal with are school activities and extended schools. Earlier this week I heard an example of the problems that parents face: a child who lived 20 minutes away from a school in Surrey was fine if he went there at the normal times—starting at 9 o'clock and leaving at 3.30—because the taxi ensured that he got there and back. However, if he stayed behind for after school activities, there was no LEA-provided transport available and his parents had to collect him, so his participation in after-school activities was rationed. Given the Government's focus on extended schools, if the take-up of after school activities or the use of extended schools is impaired because of the charging regime, or the nature of the transport arrangements, we should not continue pilot projects. 
 Both parties have agreed that parents should be able to exercise wider school choice. We need to see what impact the measure has had on patterns of choice being exercised and on existing choices about attendance at faith schools. I refer to the parents' 
 philosophical preferences, although those do not relate simply to choosing a school that reflects the parents' values in terms of adherence, or otherwise, to a religion. Some parents choose to educate their children at single-sex schools, for philosophical and perhaps religious reasons. We want to consider the impact of the travel schemes on such educational choices, as well as finding out about the impact on children whose parents wish them to be educated in a Welsh language school. 
 These are probing amendments to flesh out some of the Government's thinking behind clause 3, particularly because it gives the Secretary of State some significant powers—which the Transport Committee said were ''audacious''—to change the architecture of school transport, beyond the limited number of pilots envisaged by the Government, to affect all LEAs and all parts of the country.

John Pugh: I shall briefly say very much the same as the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban). We have arrived at the sting in the tail. The Transport Committee, the Education and Skills Committee and the hon. Gentleman have all said things that are more or less identical. The Bill is a kind of amalgam piece of legislation; there is a proposal for pilots, and something that would enable a nationwide roll-out. Those two things joined together give cause for suspicion all round, because the Government's rhetoric about the Bill was predominantly about the pilots. Of course, as long as people are talking about pilots, concerns can always be allayed, because pilots are temporary and do not last long, then they are evaluated and people learn from them.
 The normal procedure, which the Government might have followed, would have been to legislate for pilots, leave adequate time for evaluation and produce some wider enabling measure at a later date. The fact that that procedure is not being followed and is not the framework for the legislation will give grounds for suspicion that the Government are trying to sell us something that will ultimately turn out to be fairly unpalatable—and there will also be suspicion because they are cutting Parliament out of any further scrutiny of the schemes as they continue. 
 On Second Reading the Secretary of State said that he did not believe that there were such beasts as gullible councillors. He thought that if they were clamouring for the legislation, they would know exactly what they were clamouring for. The hon. Member for Fareham and I doubt that very much. In some sense this is a mixed Bill that asks for something modest, but—again, to use the word used by the Transport Committee—it achieves something audacious.

Stephen Twigg: I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Conway. First I shall address amendments Nos. 38 to 41, then amendment No. 52.
 Clause 3(1), which amendment No. 38 would change, gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to 
 end school travel schemes in England if they are unsuccessful or if, in the light of experience, a different approach is required. It does not require him to extend schemes, and if he did not do so by 1 August 2013, the piloting provisions would lapse and the schemes would become permanent. Together, amendments Nos. 38 and 39 would ensure that all schemes in England ended by 1 August 2011. Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 would mean that pilots in Wales would end between 1 August 2009 and 1 August 2011. 
 I fully understand that the hon. Members for Fareham and for Southport (Dr. Pugh) want to ensure that school travel schemes are properly evaluated and that the pace of change takes account of the wide range of concerns expressed in the House and elsewhere. The prospectus explains that LEAs with approved schemes will be required to produce an annual report containing a range of information for the Department or the National Assembly. Pilot authorities will have to have reliable systems for monitoring pupils' modes of travel to school and the impact on vulnerable groups, and will have to describe the economics of schemes. 
 The prospectus will also commit the DFES to commissioning an independent evaluation of English schemes, which will provide evidence for the decision on whether to extend the school travel scheme approach after 2011. We understand that the Welsh Assembly has similar plans. Those safeguards will ensure that the piloting approach will continue only if it is successful, and that there will be an appropriate mechanism for examining what aspects of schemes work well and what aspects need to be changed. Furthermore, they will avoid the disruption that could be caused by the amendments if authorities with popular and successful schemes were suddenly unable to continue with them. 
 I cannot support the amendments because they require us to have completed and evaluated the pilot projects by 2011, and to have put successor arrangements in place. That would not give pilots sufficient time to operate for a reasonable period, for a rigorous evaluation to be completed or for parliamentary time to be found for any successor arrangements. LEAs tell us that pilot schemes need to offer stability over several years so that parents and pupils in the wider community understand what transport arrangements there are likely to be for the duration of the time that the children will attend school. The guarantee that 2011 will be the earliest end-date is designed to give LEAs and their transport providers security; they will know that piloting arrangements could continue until that date at least. Both LEAs and transport providers asked for that during consultation. 
 Under our proposals, LEAs can let contracts of several years, which may be more economical than those of one year only. For example, longer-term contracts may allow transport providers to invest in higher-quality vehicles or schemes to train their drivers in working with school pupils; those are among the important issues that the Committee has already addressed. At this point, I cannot forecast exactly when local education authorities will be in a position 
 to start schemes. It is possible that a handful of authorities may be able to start new schemes in September 2006, but I anticipate that 2007 will be earliest practical date for most authorities. 
 I reiterate points raised by Members on both sides during our earlier deliberations: a process of consultation, debate and agreement by national authorities has to be gone through for each of the schemes. In the light of that, 2007 is a realistic date for the schemes to start. Some schemes could involve phased changes over several years. In such cases, the full benefits would probably not emerge for some time. Once the schemes are fully operational, we need to build in a period—say, six months—for a thorough evaluation and further time for investigating alternatives, which might need fresh legislation. Indeed, in his remarks on amendment No. 52, which I will come to in a moment, the hon. Member for Fareham set out clearly some of the areas that would have to be evaluated during that period. It is important to allow sufficient time for that to be the thorough evaluation that all Committee members would want. 
 An end date of 2011 would give insufficient time for a proper evaluation of schemes, particularly if they do not start until 2007. The draft Bill provides a two-year window, which will allow the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to look at the results of piloting and make decisions as to whether the school travel scheme approach is successful. We think that that gives the right level of flexibility to take account of uncertainties as to when schemes will start operating and the way they are likely to be phased in. It is for that reason that we have provided an end date for repeal of 1 August 2013. 
 The amendments do not give sufficient time for school travel schemes to be up and running and to be evaluated and for alternatives, if they are needed, to be fully investigated. The time scale specified in the Bill strikes the right balance, and it will enable us to evaluate pilots thoroughly before making any decisions about future arrangements for school transport. 
 The hon. Members for Fareham and for Southport repeated the suggestion—I was going to say the charge—that we were taking audacious powers. It is worth reminding the Committee of a couple of points. Under the proposals, no local education authority will ever be put in a position where it has to adopt a different set of arrangements to that which they have under the existing legislation. That is because of the nature of this legislation; it is based on LEAs volunteering. No requirement is being placed on any LEA; a misunderstanding about that could have led to us being accused of being audacious. 
 In the light of this morning's discussion on amendment No. 61, tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), we have agreed to look again at the issue of revocation in order to give greater flexibility and power to the LEAs. The challenge for those who seek, for perfectly understandable reasons, to tighten things up in 
 respect of parliamentary scrutiny, is that we could end up with a successful pilot having to come to an end because the powers do not exist for it to continue. That would be a realistic danger if these amendments were agreed to. 
 To add something to the discussion on the previous clause, if the piloting approach is successful and there is sufficient interest, we might be able quite quickly to have many more than 20 pilots. The current end dates of 2011 and 2013 would not hold up the further extension of schemes, provided that they crossed the various hurdles we have discussed, including getting both local support and then national approval and providing for very careful evaluation that this was a sensible course of action. 
 Amendment No. 52 proposes a non-exhaustive list of criteria which it is envisaged would be used by the Secretary of State and the Welsh Assembly to set performance measures. They would be used to measure the results of individual schemes, and to determine whether they should cease at the end of the pilot phase. 
 I agree that we need to set out clearly what we expect school travel schemes to achieve. The list contained in the amendment closely reflects the success criteria contained in paragraphs 8 to 10 of the draft prospectus. However, the amendment suggests that the relevant national authority should be obliged to adhere to detailed success criteria in primary legislation, rather than using the more flexible approach set out in the prospectus. That is not in keeping with the desire to make a thorough assessment of the outcomes of the schemes when we do not yet know the precise form that any of the schemes will take. They will run for several years, and we cannot precisely foresee whether unexpected events will affect progress and outcomes. Pre-determined rigid performance measures could themselves have consequences—albeit, perhaps, unintended ones. 
 There is a further difficulty with the amendment. It envisages that the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly will make decisions as to whether individual schemes will continue. However, clause 3 only provides powers for the Secretary of State to repeal the legislation, which would affect all the schemes together. There is no mechanism that would allow him to terminate individual schemes according to their individual performance against success criteria. I hope that the hon. Member for Fareham will think again about this amendment and the others, and will agree that scheme success criteria are best handled through the prospectus. I therefore ask him to withdraw amendment No. 38, and not to press his other amendments.

Mark Hoban: The Minister has provided little reassurance on the clause. I come away from this debate feeling more nervous than I did when I started, in the sense that the clause gives the Secretary of State free rein to decide what the success criteria are as and when he chooses. Those criteria reflect concerns raised in Committee. We need statutory protection to ensure that there are defined criteria that a Secretary of State will use, and that he will not, in six or seven years'
 time, decide on a whim that a wholly different group of criteria should be used.
 The Bill and the prospectus are clear about what we are trying to achieve, change and protect. I am worried that we will shift the goalposts in the next six or seven years. Yes, there will be new issues—that is why my list is non-exhaustive—but the purpose of the legislation is, in many respects, reflected in the criteria listed in amendment No. 52. 
 As to the timing, I understand that schemes need stability, as the Minister said. They need to take place over a period so that we can assess their effectiveness. He also said that it was important that schemes reflected the length of time that pupils remained in education. As schemes develop and progress over the years, parents will be making educational choices for their children based on the scheme currently in place, so there will never be a good time to terminate a pilot; there will always be someone who will have chosen a school based on the pilot scheme in place. 
 We can have a shorter time period without losing the stability that the Minister wants for the pilots. To say that a pilot needs to be in place for as long as six years slightly undermines the Minister's argument, given that a child in a normal, 11-to-16 secondary school will be there for five years. We can have shorter schemes. We need to bear in mind the difficulty of practical implementation of the schemes, which we have discussed in the past four sittings. Although that difficulty might suggest that we should have longer for pilots, it also means that we should perhaps have shorter times so that we can evaluate the consequences of difficult, complex schemes on the choices that parents make. 
 I am not at all happy with the Minister's assurances, but perhaps we will tackle the issue on stand part. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Hoban: The clause does not give sufficient protection to parents and the institutions to which they send their children. We need a far more robust clause to protect people, because this is the only opportunity that we will have to introduce, through primary legislation, the safeguards that we want for children who travel to school. If we simply say that, in future, the matter will be down to regulations, and that it will be up to the Secretary of State to roll out measures, we will be letting down people who, in a few years' time, as a consequence of one of the pilots, believe that there should be more statutory protection for, say, children with special educational needs.
 There should be a more generous income test in terms of applying charges, and there should be statutory protection for children who live in rural areas beyond what is provided in the Bill. Simply allowing the clause to go through today, and allowing the Secretary of State to determine what is appropriate 
 in future, is not adequate if we are trying to protect the interests of our children.

Stephen Twigg: It is worth saying—and it is probably appropriate to do so now—that there were a number of courses of action that the Government could have taken in addressing the issue. One of them, and probably the easiest path, would have been to ignore some of the concerns expressed by local government on a cross-party basis, and to leave the legislation in place with all the anomalies described in Committee and on Second Reading. A second option would have been to have gone full steam ahead with a scheme that would apply in all parts of the country. The approach that we have taken, which is deregulatory, and enables authorities to volunteer to have pilot schemes and enables us to learn the lessons from those schemes, is the best way of taking matters forward.
 Clause 3 gives appropriate powers of repeal, but does not give an absolute guarantee that something will be repealed regardless of whether its provisions turn out to be successful against a set of criteria. There is not a great deal of difference between the different parties represented in the Committee about what the success criteria will be. 
 The clause contains powers to repeal the school travel scheme provisions in the event that the approach is unsuccessful. The legislation would be removed from the statute book and school transport would return to the current arrangements. The clause is drafted in a way that allows the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to make separate arrangements. It specifies that the piloting provisions may not be terminated until 1 August 2011 at the earliest. That allows LEAs to put in place pilot school travel schemes that can last for several years. 
 I take the point made by the hon. Member for Fareham that we could be talking about quite a long period of time. A number of LEAs have said to us that they may wish to phase in new arrangements—for example, they might want to examine some of the issues that arise when pupils are changing schools from primary to secondary school. It may take several years for the full impact of a set of local changes to have effect and, therefore, that bit longer for us to be able to evaluate that. For the reasons that I set out in earlier remarks on the amendments, we have got the timing about right. The sorts of timings that have been suggested as alternatives would not give us sufficient opportunity to evaluate very fully. On that basis, I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Power to exclude scheme services from registration requirements

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I take this opportunity to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Transport a few questions about clause 4, because the explanatory notes are succinct about the Government's intentions. They say nothing about how the Government plan to use the powers that they are seeking in the clause.
 We know that section 6 of the Transport Act 1985 is an important section. I remember serving on the Standing Committee that considered that piece of legislation. The Government say that they wish to take the power to disapply that provision. There should be some explanation about why they want to do that and the circumstances in which they intend to do it. Most importantly, we should ensure that there is proper consultation before they do it. None of that is currently provided for in the Bill. 
 What is the purpose of the power to exclude? Section 6 includes important safeguards. Important issues of competition could arise if a school bus service could stop at registered bus stops and collect fare-paying passengers. Important issues are protected by section 6. That is to ensure that there is stability of service, so that it cannot be put on one month and taken off the next week, and that vehicles that are used in the service should be of a particular quality. We know also that, if public service vehicles operate an ordinary bus service and are registered under section 6, they are entitled to the fuel duty rebate. That is a big issue and arguably one of the reasons why much of school transport is not economic. One way in which it could be made more economic would be to give it access to the fuel duty rebate that is available to public services. 
 Will the Minister explain the Government's intentions, as well as the interaction between the access to the fuel duty rebate and any derogation from the powers under section 6 that they have in mind? Why is the provision limited only to school travel scheme pilots, not all school transport? If the Under-Secretary of State for Transport is to respond to this debate, I hope that she will do so in the radical way that I would expect of someone who served on Wandsworth council, albeit as an opposition Labour councillor. Three members of the Committee have had the privilege of serving on Wandsworth council: the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and me. 
 It is part of that council's tradition that its members should be forward-looking and radical in their approach. In that spirit, will the hon. Lady think about something that was mentioned at a conference last week or the week before at which we both had the privilege of speaking. It was asked whether something could be done to enable drivers to make a small charge for passengers in car-sharing arrangements. That 
 could have a radical impact on the school run. At present, anyone who is entitled to free transport, especially taxi transport, exercises that right and the cost falls four square on the council. 
 Let us suppose that the person next door takes his child to school in the car. For a modest sum, he might be willing to take the pupil from next door in the car, too, thereby reducing the congestion on the roads and ensuring that better use is made of the fuel that is used in the school run. If the Government are in the business of taking powers to modify the Transport Act 1985, which is what clause 4 will do, why are they not thinking radically about facilitating or promoting car sharing and enabling drivers to make a modest charge when they consider that appropriate? 
 The school run sharing in which we, as a family, have been involved depends on reciprocity, on the basis that one family does the school run for one week while another family will do the next week, and so on. It is a little like baby-sitting circles. In today's modern society, however, many families do not have the ability to take their children to school using their cars. It is all give on one side, and all take on the other. If there were the ability to make a modest charge, fairness and an incentive could be introduced to make people share the journey to school more than they do at present. When one stands at the school gate, it is amazing how many children arrive on their own in a car that is driven by a single adult. Surely we can do better than that. If we are in the business of school transport pilots, cannot we think radically in the great Wandsworth tradition and extend them in the way in which I have suggested?

Charlotte Atkins: There is no problem about car sharing. The existing law allows it, as long as it is not about profit or being run as a business. There is no reason why neighbours cannot share a car. In the radical tradition of Wandsworth, that could have been done many years ago.

Christopher Chope: At the conference the hon. Lady and I had a chance to respond to the point, but neither of us was able to explain to the questioner why there are many constraints on people being able to charge someone to have a child or somebody else in their car as a passenger. There are insurance and other legal constraints on doing that. People can share, but are not able under the law to give the space in their car in return for a fee.

Charlotte Atkins: Normal car sharing is allowed for a fee that helps compensate its owner for depreciation and wear and tear. There may be other issues, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman about children in cars, in terms of protection and so on, and I am sure that we can clear up the matter. I understand that car sharing is allowed under current legislation, and many local authorities are introducing innovative schemes involving car sharing and lanes for cars with more than one occupant. That is already on the cards and is part of our bids to ensure that we reduce congestion as much as possible.

Peter Atkinson: May I press the Minister a little bit further? One suggestion made in rural Northumberland, where people travel
 considerable distances to school, was that the education authority should give some money to a parent to provide a daily service using a car, but it prompted an enormous amount of complications because a profit motive was being introduced into the deal and apparently it was not possible to proceed. However, that would be a good solution, too.

Charlotte Atkins: Clearly, profit is the issue. There are relevant situations. For example, volunteers drive patients to hospital, and such arrangements exist perfectly adequately. However, we will consider the matter raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch and ensure that the Committee is fully informed well before consideration on Report.
 The hon. Member for Christchurch referred to the fuel duty rebate, but I am informed that the Bill will have no impact on that. The clause proposes that school transport schemes should not have to be registered. Hon. Members will understand that the registration of local bus services outside London is a form of consumer protection and that operators have to run advertised services. A service contracted by the LEA is an arrangement between the LEA and pupils and although some paying passengers might use the service, the advice we were given was that where pupils pay to use the bus—as in the vacant seat scheme—it would bring school transport under the need to register. 
 We do not believe that it is appropriate for a school bus service that is not generally available to the public to be registered. Registration requires 56 days' notice of any change in the service, route or timetable. That is clearly desirable for services that are open to the public and timetabled, but it can be overly restrictive for dedicated school transport. For example, one pupil who is usually picked up from a farm may no longer need to be collected because they have left the school. It would be crazy to make a detour not to collect that pupil and have to give 56 days notice of that change of route.

Mark Hoban: We should bear in mind the Minister's remarks on a previous group of amendments about the need for stability in schemes, because people base their school choices on existing modes of transport and available routes. Is there not a risk that if we do what she has outlined children who have decided to go to school X on the basis that it is on a bus route provided by the local authority could be disadvantaged because no notice had been given of a change in route?

Charlotte Atkins: We do not believe that this sort of service should require 56 days' notice, although parents will clearly have to be given notice.
 It was asked why the Department for Transport has not considered the generality of the situation, rather than just the school travel schemes. The Department is preparing proposals by means of a regulatory reform order that will make this a change for school bus services in general rather than travel schemes alone. In the meantime, this clause is related only to school travel schemes, not to all school travel.

Christopher Chope: We have had an interesting exchange. My reading of section 6 of the Transport Act 1985 is that if the Government were to want to legislate to change notice times to fewer than 56 days in relation to school transport schemes, which otherwise have to be registered under that section, they could do that under proposed new paragraph (9), so this power would not be needed to achieve that.
 I made a point about the fuel duty rebate. Many people, particularly in rural areas, feel that it is unfair—and bad and unnecessary in terms of the environment—that the dedicated school bus goes by with subsidised passengers on board and that ordinary people who pay their council tax cannot gain access to it even if they are prepared to pay a fare. 
 If more school bus services were registered services under the Transport Act, my understanding is that they would then be able to qualify for the fuel duty rebate, because that is payable in respect of all bus services that are registered. One way of being more radical about this would be to encourage more school transport services to qualify for the rebate. Perhaps, however, that is not the Government's intention. It would be a sensible strategy to make the rebate subsidy available for further forms of public transport, but at the moment it is not. I do not understand why the Government wish to exclude from the provisions of section 6 of the Transport Act services that would otherwise have to be registered because they would be able to collect fare-paying passengers and thereby qualify for the fuel duty rebate. The argument about the need for flexibility and the rigidity of the 56 days' notice is not an answer to that point, because that point is already covered by the regulation-making power in the 1985 Act. 
 The Government need to think a bit more about what their agenda is and about the need for people in rural areas to get access to good bus services. Why should not someone who wishes to go to work—at the school itself, perhaps, or nearby—be able to board a bus with vacant seats as a fare-paying passenger, as part of a radical reappraisal of journeys to work and school?

Charlotte Atkins: As I understand it, the eligibility for fuel duty rebate is not related to the need to register. It is related to carrying the general public. The only services that we are proposing to exclude are the ones not used by the general public, and they have never been eligible. The premise on which that radical solution is proposed does not hold.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Short title, commencement and extent

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: Why is this to be called the School Transport Act 2005 rather than the School Transport Pilots Act 2005?

Stephen Twigg: That is not a question that has arisen during the consultation or the pre-legislative scrutiny, but it is one on which I can reflect. Brevity was perhaps in our minds when we were coming up with a title for the Bill, and, therefore, for the Act.

Roger Casale: Is it anything to do with the fact that we are intending to take the children to school by bus and by minicab—in the case of those with special educational needs—rather than by helicopter or by plane?

Stephen Twigg: That is an ingenious answer. I am sorry that I did not think of it. Pilots could be taken to have another meaning.

Huw Edwards: I am going to agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope); it could be called the School Transport Pilot Areas Act 2005. That would give people a better understanding of what it really is.

Stephen Twigg: I now have two alternative suggestions. My preference is to maintain the brevity of the current description of the Bill and, therefore, the likely description of the Act.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Derek Conway: Before I propose the Question, on behalf of my fellow Chairman and myself, I want to thank Committee members on the way in which they have conducted a frank and informative debate. On behalf of the Committee, I thank those who enabled us to go through the proceedings, particularly the staff of the Serjeant at Arms and the Official Report, the Clerks and police officers, for ensuring that all went well.

Stephen Twigg: On a point of order, Mr. Conway. On behalf of Committee members from all parties, I thank you and Mr. O'Brien for your characteristically excellent chairmanship of our proceedings. We have had a very good Committee stage, in which the various
 issues in the Bill have been fully explored. There are a number of issues to which we will return on Report. The excellent chairmanship of the Committee has enabled us to examine these matters in a frank and constructive manner.{**bch**}

Mark Hoban: Further to that point of order, Mr. Conway. May I echo the thanks that the Minister gave to you and to your co-Chairman, Mr. O'Brien. We have progressed at a fairly quick pace thanks to your guidance and chairmanship, and that of Mr. O'Brien. As the Minister said, we have aired a number of important issues. While the Bill may be described by the Select Committee on Transport as ''timid'', I know that many people beyond this Room will pay particular interest to some of the issues that we have debated. They hope, as well as we do, that such issues are returned to on Report.

John Pugh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Conway. May I thank you and Mr. O'Brien for your efficient and discreet chairmanship. I thank the Minister for having been charming throughout, for not being especially evasive and for using the scrutiny process to good effect.
 I also congratulate the hon. Member for Fareham on his debut as an Opposition chief spokesman. His amendments were pointed and worth while, and his contributions were succinct and to the point. They engineered good debate. I also thank many other hon. Members who have made valuable and informed contributions and who did not choose the occasion to get on with their personal mail. That is very good. My sole disappointment is that many excellent amendments that I had prepared will now have to wait for Report and Third Reading. I am sure that that disappointment is widely felt, but we have to disband now. 
 Bill to be reported, without amendment. 
 Committee rose at twenty-six minutes to Four o'clock.